Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Joey**

purplefood wrote:I'm all for reformation...
That and harsher sentencing for those who cheat the system. Though it would depend on magnitude as well.

Tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit frauds:
http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.

**mstersmith3**

InquisitorVaron wrote:I know someone who did a backflip of a mountain whilst skiing broke his back and can't move anymore, he has trouble with getting money and has been wrongly cut off plenty of times.

So you affect the poeple that really need it, I better solution would be to make them have Incremental payment, starting off very low to cover the costs of surprise visit at 2 Month intervals, after passing them or whatever they get more pay until they get up to what we class as normal now.

I think better background checks ans Immigration laws are what are to blame, I'm all for multiculture but not at our expense or when it promotes illegal activities. Forged passports and the like.

Wait he did a back flip skiing and gets paid? See that is self inflicted. I see a need for a "Darwin" regulation. If proven to be half slowed you get squat.

**Orlanth**

Medium of Death wrote:We can't take care of our elderly taxpayers but we can accommodate this foreign faux-cripple and other benefit sponging scumbags... oh and junkies...

Its all about empowerment.

If an elderly person is not getting what they should be getting they get precious little support.

Anyone who can claim an '-ism' can.

I know a case of a disabled guy while while able bodied and being fethed over by an employer could do nothing about it. Could he get representation, only if he paid for it. Then get got diagnosed with MS. Instant change, same problem but different rights entirely. Free representation because he was suddenly disadvantaged.

We all have the same rights, but those are just words. Empowerment of those rights comes from having minority status or a chequebook.

If someone claims to be a 'tortured by Taliban asylum seeker' they get extra leeway, because if you dont believe them they can get a lawyer real easy. The average taxpayer can only get this if they pay for it, your empoyer knows this, your energy provider knows this your bank knows this etc. I have seen very nasty constructive dismissal cases turn into a pucker factor for the company concerned because the person they were fething over suddenly got an unrelated illness and changed status to disabled.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:Point is if VA require me to reeval each year then why not everybody else since its gov't money?

Well, I can't speak for any other recipients of "government money", but my wife is on disability, and she does have to re-eval every so often to remain eligible - we just had to this year, but I don't recall for how long it lasts. Maybe it's different for non federal employees?

**Melissia**

Orlanth wrote:If an elderly person is not getting what they should be getting they get precious little support.

That's the opposite problem that the US has.

Currently our elderly population is too powerful, politically... social security is basically untouchable because of greedy geriatrics being unconcerned with future generations (Amongst other reasons, obviously).

**Jihadin**

Ouze I do believe so for the non federal peeps.

**CT GAMER**

Joey wrote:
purplefood wrote:I'm all for reformation...
That and harsher sentencing for those who cheat the system. Though it would depend on magnitude as well.

Tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit frauds:
http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.

Stop injecting common sense into internet hate-rants...

**mattyrm**

CT GAMER wrote:

So one crook is representative of all receiving care?

By that same token I can probable google and find any number of stories of soldiers doing illegal/horrible things. Does that mean all soldiers are deserving of ridicule?

Of course not.

Come on Mattrym, at least pretend to apply a little common sense to these discussions...

Considering you seem to like attempting to ridicule me about "common sense" you dont appear to be displaying any.

Your post doesnt even make any sense, let alone "common" sense. What on earth has the soldier analogy got to do with anything I have spoken about?

When did I, or would anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, say, or even hint that "So one crook is representative of all receiving care?"

I didn't say that. I didn't even hint it. So who are you arguing with? Yourself?

Read my posts properly in future, then you dont have to infer that I said things that I didnt, and argue with yourself. For your benefit however I shall type out my feelings for you very clearly below.

The above story is proof that the state can and does support people with special needs and disabilities. Therefore, I believe that the current system is more than adequate, and people are complaining about the system not being generous enough when in my eyes it clearly is and funds are readily available for people in need.

Simple.

Now you can disagree with me on that point if you wish, I would be intrigued to hear evidence to the contrary and you might even change my mind. I'm always open for a stirring debate, and the plus side of this is that now we can argue about something I actually said!

**Wolfstan**

Perhaps if they'd been allowed to sort out some kind of identity card, then this sort of thing could of been clamped down on. As people have already said, any system is open to abuse, none is 100% perfect. You will also find that alot of stories that the British press print are designed to highlight the bad bits, just to back up their own agenda.

As an aside I have a step daughter who went down with ME when she was 7, she is now 23, and has suffered in various ways with it ever since. I'm dreading seeing what happens when the new reviews take hold, it was bad enough before.

**Kilkrazy**

mattyrm wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:

So one crook is representative of all receiving care?

By that same token I can probable google and find any number of stories of soldiers doing illegal/horrible things. Does that mean all soldiers are deserving of ridicule?

Of course not.

Come on Mattrym, at least pretend to apply a little common sense to these discussions...

Considering you seem to like attempting to ridicule me about "common sense" you dont appear to be displaying any.

Your post doesnt even make any sense, let alone "common" sense. What on earth has the soldier analogy got to do with anything I have spoken about?

...

Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.

**mattyrm**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.

Of course it isnt, the clue is in the title.

The thread is called "Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate..."

I linked the story because I think it goes some way to proving my belief that we DO provide acceptable levels of social care, because a guy who wasnt even a British citizen was given a two bedroomed flat, that was specially fitted for him as he had (fake) disabilities, thus proving that there are adequate measures in place to ensure that people with special needs ARE cared/provided for. That was the point of the thread, and the title of the thread.

If my thread was called "Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants" you might have a point, but it isn't.

As with CT, you are aware of some of my political beliefs and disagree with them, have simultaneously decided I am far more right wing than I actually am, and are inventing an issue that I didnt say and don't believe as it is easier to tear down. It's a big fat strawman.

Only an absolute moron would think that somebody like Mohammed Barazin is a "typical" benefit claimant, and that almost everyone on disability is "faking it", and that is precisely why I didn't say it.

**Joey**

CT GAMER wrote:
Joey wrote:
purplefood wrote:I'm all for reformation...
That and harsher sentencing for those who cheat the system. Though it would depend on magnitude as well.

Tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit frauds:
http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.

Stop injecting common sense into internet hate-rants...

It's okay, I've been completely ignored anyway.

**Mr. Burning**

The system is designed to get the post possible results even if those results are negative.

Look at unemployment and their departments.
Unemployment is vast in the UK, and yet it is a success to process claimants in the minimum amount of time. Job centre workers are not employed to find claimants work, even though they have a vast range of jobs on offer, a large percentage of UK vacancies are displayed in jobcentres.

The system isn't geared up to pushing employment. Take away a right to unemployment benefits and you get passed onto other welfare structures. The system encourages options such as pointless training and schemes to cut 'actual' jobless figures, even though claimants are still getting paid every fortnight.

Even if a Jobcentre sends along dross to fill a vacancy the Jobcentre takes no blame.

The same goes for welfare, These public servants are employed to get people on benefits and to process their claims. There is no real responsibility to verify claims, only to get them on their way. You think the workers who process bogus claims get blamed for doing poor work? Nope.

No one need take ownership of an issue or even a case.

I dare anyone who works in the UK to visit a jobcentre any day of the week and see how many staff are there, vs claimants. look at how long the signing process takes. Go see an employment agency and see the difference.

It's no wonder people con the system. the Employess are not held responsible for the loss of thousands of £. Its ridiculous.

**CT GAMER**

mattyrm wrote:

As with CT, you are aware of some of my political beliefs and disagree with them, have simultaneously decided I am far more right wing than I actually am, and are inventing an issue that I didnt say and don't believe as it is easier to tear down. It's a big fat strawman.

Only an absolute moron would think that somebody like Mohammed Barazin is a "typical" benefit claimant, and that almost everyone on disability is "faking it", and that is precisely why I didn't say it.

No one needs to put words in your mouth, you supply a ready source...

**mattyrm**

CT GAMER wrote:
mattyrm wrote:

As with CT, you are aware of some of my political beliefs and disagree with them, have simultaneously decided I am far more right wing than I actually am, and are inventing an issue that I didnt say and don't believe as it is easier to tear down. It's a big fat strawman.

Only an absolute moron would think that somebody like Mohammed Barazin is a "typical" benefit claimant, and that almost everyone on disability is "faking it", and that is precisely why I didn't say it.

No one needs to put words in your mouth, you supply a ready source...

As do we all, we post messages on the website using words.

Once again I am at a loss as to the point of your post?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Joey wrote:
purplefood wrote:I'm all for reformation...
That and harsher sentencing for those who cheat the system. Though it would depend on magnitude as well.

Tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit frauds:
http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.

Stop injecting common sense into internet hate-rants...

It's okay, I've been completely ignored anyway.

Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?

Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?

**Jihadin**

Tea withdraw Matt? I need to know because....you might be having a caffiene withdraw mate.

**mattyrm**

Mr. Burning wrote:The system is designed to get the post possible results even if those results are negative.

Look at unemployment and their departments.
Unemployment is vast in the UK, and yet it is a success to process claimants in the minimum amount of time. Job centre workers are not employed to find claimants work, even though they have a vast range of jobs on offer, a large percentage of UK vacancies are displayed in jobcentres.

The system isn't geared up to pushing employment. Take away a right to unemployment benefits and you get passed onto other welfare structures. The system encourages options such as pointless training and schemes to cut 'actual' jobless figures, even though claimants are still getting paid every fortnight.

Even if a Jobcentre sends along dross to fill a vacancy the Jobcentre takes no blame.

The same goes for welfare, These public servants are employed to get people on benefits and to process their claims. There is no real responsibility to verify claims, only to get them on their way. You think the workers who process bogus claims get blamed for doing poor work? Nope.

No one need take ownership of an issue or even a case.

I dare anyone who works in the UK to visit a jobcentre any day of the week and see how many staff are there, vs claimants. look at how long the signing process takes. Go see an employment agency and see the difference.

It's no wonder people con the system. the Employess are not held responsible for the loss of thousands of £. Its ridiculous.

A fair point, perhaps greater accountability is required, I doubt there is any form of easy fix though because its not like the government wants to lose money. If there was an easy fix I'm sure it would have already been applied.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Tea withdraw Matt? I need to know because....you might be having a caffiene withdraw mate.

I never run out of tea mate, I live over the road from a Waitrose.

Why do you ask? I'm my usual pleasant self aren't I?

**CT GAMER**

My mistake Mattyrm, I can clearly see now that your example wasn't chosen because of any particular characteristics, origin, ethnicity of the subject...

Could of used this one as well:

An ex-soldier from Chorley has pleaded guilty to four counts of falsely obtaining more than £11,000 in benefits.

The extra cash was claimed over a six year period in housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Alan James Cobham, of Steeley Lane, claimed the benefits on the basis that his only source of income was his Incapacity Benefit.

However, he had also been in receipt of a war disablement pension and an armed forces occupational pension after leaving the Army because of injury, neither of which he had declared on his claims form, South Ribble Magistrates Court was told.

Mr Cobham also failed to declare the bank account into which these pensions were paid.

The information had come to light following a national data matching exercise.

Information from the Chorley council’s benefit system was matched with data held by other public authorities including the Armed Forces Pension Agency.

Councillor Kevin Joyce, Chorley Council’s Executive Member for Transformation said: “Chorley Council has, for many years, used its discretionary powers to disregard war pensions, war widows and war disablement pensions when calculating benefits. These pensions are paid when a serving member of the British armed forces is killed or wounded.

“By disregarding these pensions, ex-service personnel and their families are more likely to qualify for help with their rent and council tax.

“Mr Cobham’s occupational pension, like any pension from a former employer, is not disregarded and should have been declared. He had several opportunities to tell the council about his income but he did not.

“Now as well as having to repay the overpaid benefit, Mr Cobham has a criminal record for benefit fraud.”

Mr Cobham was given a two-year conditional discharge. No costs were awarded. He is currently repaying the overpayment.

or this:

A former soldier from Halesowen who fraudulently claimed almost £18,000 in benefits while working as a cleaner has been ordered to carry out unpaid work in the community.

Gary Petford, aged 54, is now back on incapacity benefits despite his cheating record – but the Department of Work and Pensions is deducting the money he obtained fraudulently from his payments.

Petford, of Stourbridge Road, admitted four fraudulent claims totalling £17,775 worth of incapacity, housing and council tax benefits. Dudley magistrates ordered him to pay £100 towards the prosecution costs.

Miss Claire Beddow, prosecuting, said Petford initially started claiming incapacity benefit legally in September 1993 after suffering a broken wrist.

But, the Department of Work and Pensions discovered that, from August 2008 to November 2009, he had been working as a cleaner for Manheim Europe. When he was interviewed, Petford admitted he had previously been a cleaner at Birmingham University from November 2006 to January 2008.

Read more: http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/09/21/ex-soldier-in-court-for-18k-benefit-fraud/#ixzz1ewRVZq10

or even this:

A former soldier has been jailed for a £21,000 benefit fraud.

Bernard Crowe, 62, of Sykes Street, Hull city centre, pleaded guilty to four counts of making false statements to obtain benefits amounting to £20,746 over a five-year period

Bernard Crowe
Judge Roger Thorn QC, sitting at Hull Crown Court, jailed Crowe, who has been unemployed for 19 years, to eight months imprisonment.

He said there needed to be a message sent out to benefit cheats that they will be punished.

Judge Thorn said: "I have to have regard for the prevalence of these offences.

"In this area of deprivation, these are substantial sums and anything less than a custodial sentence would send out the wrong message and would repulse those who are law abiding."

Crowe had claimed he only had £100 of savings, but investigators discovered he had £60,000 in his bank accounts.

He pleaded guilty on the basis that only £10,000 of the money belonged to him and admitted he had dishonestly looked after the rest of the money for a friend who was getting divorced to ensure it not form part of a divorce settlement.

Crowe admitted wrongly claiming housing, council tax and income support benefits between March 2001 and May 2006.

Judge Thorn QC added: "Over a period of time you have been dishonest. You also concealed a sum of £40,000 while your friend was going through a divorce process.

"Concealing money that might have been available to his wife. I take into account the gravity of these matters over all."

The court heard Crowe had served in the army for eight years and had been described as having "exemplary" conduct.

Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) fraud manager Susan Hall said: "Most people only claim the benefits they are entitled to. But we know a tiny percentage want to steal money intended to help others.

"That is unfair, and we are determined to crack down on these cases. Mr Crowe has found out that our investigators are committed to catch the few who are stealing money they are not entitled to."

Crowe was also ordered to pay £250 court costs.

A proceeds of crime hearing will be held on September 30.

His benefits have currently been reduced to enable him to pay back some of the money he fraudulently claimed from the DWP.

**mattyrm**

CT GAMER wrote:My mistake Mattyrm, I can clearly see now that your example wasn't chosen because of any particular characteristics, origin, ethnicity of the subject...

Have you been drinking mate? Your not making any sense tonight.

Of course Itwas chosen for particular characteristics! Read what I write.

I specifically said that I picked him because he wasn't a British citizen. Here, this is about 6 posts up.

I linked the story because I think it goes some way to proving my belief that we DO provide acceptable levels of social care, because a guy who wasnt even a British citizen was given a two bedroomed flat, that was specially fitted for him as he had (fake) disabilities, thus proving that there are adequate measures in place to ensure that people with special needs ARE cared/provided for.

Secondly, what on earth is the point of your links? Is anyone foolish enough to think that soldiers DONT commit fraud?!

Hah! Like they are paragons of moral behaviour?!

Soldiers are as bad as every other human, some are very good, some are very bad. Exactly where are you going with this line of reasoning?

**CT GAMER**

mattyrm wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:My mistake Mattyrm, I can clearly see now that your example wasn't chosen because of any particular characteristics, origin, ethnicity of the subject...

Have you been drinking mate? Your not making any sense tonight.

Of course I was chosen for particular characteristics! Read what I write.

I specifically said that I picked him because he wasn't a British citizen.

And so how is that an example of providing adequate benefits?

It is an example of fraud, as are mine.

Just because some people are committing fraud does not mean that the system provides adequate benefits to everyone that needs them or to the degree that would be beneficial.

Seems more like another attempt by you to hint about how much you hate "those" types...

**Joey**

mattyrm wrote:
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?

Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?

Fraud is a crime. It is illegal. Its cost is negligible in comparison to pretty much anything, including conventional crime.
The thread title is completely miss-leading. I may message a mod requesting it to be changed to "should we punish the vulnerable for something they didn't do?". Title as it stands gives no hint as to the HATEHATEHATE that essentially make up everything you've said.

**mattyrm**

CT GAMER wrote:

And so how is that an example of providing adequate benefits?

It is an example of fraud, as are mine.

Just because some people are committing fraud does not mean that the system provides adequate benefits to everyone that needs them or to the degree that would be beneficial.

Seems more like another attempt by you to hint about how much you hate "those" types...

Of course it does, it said he was given nearly half a million pounds, and his flat was given to him, and specially adjusted for his needs because he was disabled! How can that not prove that benefits are adequate?

**Kilkrazy**

mattyrm wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.

Of course it isnt, the clue is in the title.

The thread is called "Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate..."

...

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Your motivation is transparent. You have often made threads like this one attacking claimants, immigrants and Arabic people, and this is more of the same.

There isn't any reason to mention this guy except to emphasise the £400,000 he defrauded. It's nothing to do with social welfare.

**mattyrm**

Joey wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?

Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?

Fraud is a crime. It is illegal. Its cost is negligible in comparison to pretty much anything, including conventional crime.
The thread title is completely miss-leading. I may message a mod requesting it to be changed to "should we punish the vulnerable for something they didn't do?". Title as it stands gives no hint as to the HATEHATEHATE that essentially make up everything you've said.

How on earth am I saying "punish the vulnerable" when I am saying nothing of the sort?

I am not advocating removal of state assistance for people with special needs, at no point in this thread have I said that, and only a total savage would say such a thing. If I said "Yeah! people in wheelchairs deserve to starve!" then you could and should request a thread name change, but I am not.

I am merely saying that the assistance is clearly available and many people make use of it. Where are you getting this from, and why are you so irate?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.

Of course it isnt, the clue is in the title.

The thread is called "Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate..."

...

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Your motivation is transparent. You have often made threads like this one attacking claimants, immigrants and Arabic people, and this is more of the same.

There isn't any reason to mention this guy except to emphasise the £400,000 he defrauded. It's nothing to do with social welfare.

Do me a favour. I am a constant and vocal critic of all organised Religion, regularly and often, and especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This has never ever been hidden by me, so why on earth would I start now?

You are attempting to insinuate I am racist because I happen to dislike Islam, when I criticize Christianity just as much and I always have done, so clearly that is entirely incorrect as well.

Although, less of late due to unfair and ill thought out bans.

The point is exactly what it says on the tin. How can disability benefit be inadequate when a man who isn't a citizen can obtain £400,000 of it?

**Joey**

mattyrm wrote:
Joey wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?

Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?

Fraud is a crime. It is illegal. Its cost is negligible in comparison to pretty much anything, including conventional crime.
The thread title is completely miss-leading. I may message a mod requesting it to be changed to "should we punish the vulnerable for something they didn't do?". Title as it stands gives no hint as to the HATEHATEHATE that essentially make up everything you've said.

How on earth am I saying "punish the vulnerable" when I am saying nothing of the sort?

I am not advocating removal of state assistance for people with special needs, at no point in this thread have I said that, and only a total savage would say such a thing. If I said "Yeah! people in wheelchairs deserve to starve!" then you could and should request a thread name change, but I am not.

I am merely saying that the assistance is clearly available and many people make use of it. Where are you getting this from, and why are you so irate?

Every single post in off-topic involves saying the person who disagrees with you is irrationally angry, so i'll ignore that.
All you have done is singled out a single instance of theft and said it's wrong. Why not make a thread about why murder is wrong? Or rape, or beating someone up, or anything wrong?

**Jihadin**

Secondly, what on earth is the point of your links? Is anyone foolish enough to think that soldiers DONT commit fraud?!

Hah! Like they are paragons of moral behaviour?!

Soldiers are as bad as every other human, some are very good, some are very bad. Exactly where are you going with this line of reasoning?

.............

In the military we never say steal...we acquire

**mattyrm**

Joey wrote:
All you have done is singled out a single instance of theft and said it's wrong. Why not make a thread about why murder is wrong? Or rape, or beating someone up, or anything wrong?

Mate, all of those things are so clearly and obviously wrong that there wouldn't be any point in said thread because everyone would instantly agree. You cant have a discussion if you all agree can you?

The wellfare thing is a good debate because people see things differently. I am a big supporter of Mr Cameron and I believe that clearly our current system is generous enough as it stands and can be easily defrauded. I think that when DC says the system could do with some changes it could do, but that doesn't mean I think we should be leaving people to starve because I clearly don't. If I give you the impression that I am ridiculously right wing then I apologise, but most of the time my tongue if firmly in my cheek when I say things like "Bring back hanging and flogging"

I dont agree with waterboarding either.

**MrDwhitey**

mattyrm wrote: I dont agree with waterboarding either.

You say that, and I just have this image of you in a pub shouting "It doesn't go far enough!" to the other patrons.

**George Spiggott**

mattyrm wrote: The point is exactly what it says on the tin. How can disability benefit be inadequate when a man who isn't a citizen can obtain £400,000 of it?

About £140,000 went to his carers (assuming he wasn't defrauding them too - Oh the irony) so the figure's a little closer to £260,000 as an individual.

One does wonder how he managed this without proper medical confirmation (GP, specialists and such). I understand that medical professional input is to be reduced under Tory plans. The new Tory check list approach, without guidance from medical professionals, will undoubtedly increase the chances of fraud not decrease it.

I don't have a problem with genuinely ill people getting the support that the do. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea that undeserving fraudsters should get help. We're in agreement there.

The only other issue is should genuinely ill people get the money they do.

**Joey**

Jihadin wrote:
Secondly, what on earth is the point of your links? Is anyone foolish enough to think that soldiers DONT commit fraud?!

Hah! Like they are paragons of moral behaviour?!

Soldiers are as bad as every other human, some are very good, some are very bad. Exactly where are you going with this line of reasoning?

.............

In the military we never say steal...we acquire

My grandfather spent the war selling off army equipment to the arabs.
And people say the Irish are untrustworthy...